What did you find interesting or uninteresting about the piece? Was there something that seemed intuitive or counterintuitive? Explain.
It's very interesting to think about globalization's role in the economic revolution. A merchant's frustration about different towns using different units of measure and currency is documented in the piece. Why on earth would anyone aim to expand their business when everything requires immense amounts of conversion? If anything, a businessman would be dis-incentivized to grow wealthier because the cost of adjusting prices and weights for various locations outweighs the benefit of becoming richer. The industrial revolution made connections between people all over the world much more attainable. This insinuated more and more trade between nations. It's very intuitive to correlate the time of the economic and industrial revolutions. Quite frankly, without a widespread circulation of money, economics barely exists. There was no reason for economists in the times where religion and monarchy ruled all. Church leaders and kings weren't wealthy because of a desire to attain wealth, but rather because they took money from poorer people. Once the playing field was leveled a bit, the desire to be rich flourished, and the economic theories we know today were born.
Discussion Questions
Heilbroner writes about man's innate desire to become richer, which is juxtaposed with Rizzo's earlier statement in the course that the natural state of man is poverty. Which idea is correct? Explain the discrepancy.
Many Americans have fears about China "overtaking" the US. China is somewhat of a 'command society', meaning it will be economically stable. Are these people's concerns justifiable or just rubbish?
Annotation
This reading helped to further understanding on the topic of industrialization and the impact it had on the study of economics. Without globalization, economics would be pretty irrelevant. This is because economics is a social science. The interaction between people is crucial. 'The Economic Revolution' also hammers home points that came up in class about the massive increase in global wealth in the last few centuries. The reasons for this up curve lie in the industrial revolution's ability to streamline trade and global exchange of goods.
Your first discussion question is not entirely correct. These two positions/statements do not exclude each other, in fact, they go hand in hand.
ReplyDeleteAre the fears about China "overtaking" the US founded? This is of course an interesting question. You might find it profitable to look up from the recent debt ceiling debacle who the United States' largest creditors are (who we owe the most money to). I'll give you a hint, it's not China.